McCumbers v. Puckett
183 Ohio App. 3d 762, 918 N.E.2d 1046 (2009)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
An easement by estoppel is created when a landowner permits another to use their land under circumstances where it is reasonably foreseeable that the user will substantially change their position in reliance on that permission, and the user does so, making it unjust to later revoke the permission.
Facts:
- Roger and Nancy McCumbers owned property adjacent to property owned by Gary and Deborah Puckett, who were relatives.
- The Pucketts owned a strip of land with a driveway that provided access for both properties to a public road.
- In 1979, the McCumberses' predecessors in title shared the cost of installing the original gravel driveway on the Pucketts' land.
- In 2004, Gary Puckett agreed to build a new garage for the McCumberses on their property, located adjacent to the driveway on the Pucketts' strip of land.
- Gary Puckett personally constructed 80 to 90 percent of the new garage, which was designed with its doors facing the driveway, before quitting the project in May 2005.
- The McCumberses hired another person to complete the garage and then paved an approach connecting the new garage to the driveway on the Pucketts' land.
- In 2006, following a dispute over mailboxes, Gary Puckett threatened to erect a fence to deny the McCumberses access to their new garage via the driveway.
Procedural Posture:
- Roger and Nancy McCumbers filed a complaint against Gary and Deborah Puckett in the Fayette County Court of Common Pleas (the trial court).
- The McCumberses sought a judicial declaration of an easement over the Pucketts' driveway under the doctrines of prescriptive easement and easement by estoppel.
- After a bench trial, the trial court found against the McCumberses on the prescriptive easement claim but granted them an appurtenant easement by estoppel for ingress and egress.
- The Pucketts, as defendants-appellants, appealed the trial court's judgment to the Ohio Court of Appeals, Twelfth Appellate District.
- The McCumberses are the plaintiffs-appellees in the appeal.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does an easement by estoppel arise when a landowner actively participates in building a neighbor's garage that relies on access over the landowner's property, thereby inducing the neighbor's reliance, even without an explicit misrepresentation?
Opinions:
Majority - Hendrickson, Judge.
Yes. An easement by estoppel is created when a landowner's conduct induces another's reasonable reliance, and injustice can only be avoided by establishing the servitude. The court adopted the standard from the Restatement (Third) of Property, which does not require a misrepresentation but focuses on foreseeability and reliance. Here, Gary Puckett did not merely permit the garage's construction; he actively participated by building 80-90% of it, knowing its doors faced his driveway and that it would depend on that driveway for access. This conduct created a reasonable belief for the McCumberses that their right to use the driveway was non-revocable. By failing to assert his conflicting rights before the McCumberses expended significant money on the garage, Puckett is estopped from denying them an easement, as doing so would be unconscionable.
Analysis:
This decision solidifies the application of the Restatement (Third) of Property's modern view on easement by estoppel in Ohio, shifting the focus from traditional fraud or misrepresentation to foreseeable, detrimental reliance. The case establishes that a landowner's active participation or silent acquiescence in a neighbor's improvements can create an easement, placing a duty on the landowner to object in a timely manner. This precedent makes it easier for parties who have invested in property based on a reasonable understanding of access to secure that right, even without a formal agreement.
